Last Updated on May 13, 2019 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8693/06
Maria NICOLAU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 February 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Maria Nicolau, was a Romanian national, who was born in 1928 and died on 13 October 2007. Her heirs, MsRodica Neagu and Mr Eugen Neagu expressed their wish to pursue the application. For practical reasons, Ms Maria Neagu will continue to be referred to in this decision as “the applicant”, although her heirs are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI).
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 21 July 2003 the applicant received a reduced amount of her pension. Upon her request, the authority for pensions (Casa de Pensii) informed her that a part of her pension had been garnished, following a request made by the Authority for Public Finances (AdministraţiaFinanţelorPublice, “the financial authority”), in order to cover a debt she had towards the State. It appears from the submissions made by the parties before the Court that the debt consisted of unpaid fines imposed on the applicant by the domestic courts for contempt of court as well as legal costs incurred in various proceedings in which the applicant was a party.
5. On 4 August 2003 the applicant challenged the decision taken by the administrative authorities to garnish her pension. She complained that she had not been duly informed about it.
6. On 19 September 2003 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the objection, on the grounds that according to the evidence in the file, the order to pay the debt and the order to garnish a part of the pension, issued by the financial authority, had been notified to the applicant by means of public notice (citareaprinafişare).
7. The applicant appealed accusing the District Court of having misinterpreted the evidence and of having lied about the documents in the file. She asked the Bucharest County Court to seek clarifications from the financial authority and from the authority for pensions about the orders issued in respect of her debt. The authorities sent several documents, but the applicant requested that more documents be obtained. On 25 August 2005 the County Court dismissed her new request, noting that the relevant documents had already been submitted by the authorities. In a final decision adopted on the same day, the County Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment rendered by the District Court.
COMPLAINT
8. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the courts had refused her request for further evidence.
THE LAW
9. The applicant complained of an alleged infringement of her right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …”
A. The parties’ observations
10. The Government argued that the applicant’s heirs did not have the right to pursue the application after her death. They further argued that the application was incompatible rationemateria with the provisions of the Convention, in so far as the domestic proceedings did not concern civil rights but rather fiscal obligations which form part of the hard core of public-authority prerogatives. They relied on Ferrazzini v. Italy ([GC], no. 44759/98, § 29, ECHR 2001‑VII).
11. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that the complaint brought before the Court had been examined exhaustively by the domestic courts, and for that reason the applicant had lost her victim status. They averred that the applicant had fully participated in the domestic proceedings and had been unhindered in seeking evidence and presenting her point of view. Lastly, they reiterated that the applicant had never contested the obligation to pay the debt and had not manifested any intention to do so before the domestic courts, her complaint being exclusively about the manner in which the administration notified the documents concerning the execution of the debt.
12. The applicant argued that the additional evidence sought would have allowed her to prove that she had not received any notification of her obligation to pay the debt.
B. The Court’s assessment
13. The Court notes that the Government raised several objections to the admissibility of the application, notably concerning the applicant’s and the heirs’ victim status and the application’s compatibility rationemateriae with the Convention. However, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine them in detail, in so far as, even assuming that the applicant has a “civil right” for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ferrazzini, cited above, § 25 with further reference), the application is in any case inadmissible for the reasons detailed below.
14. The Court notes that the applicant complained that the domestic courts had allegedly denied her the possibility to add evidence to the case file. On this point, it reiterates that admissibility and assessment of evidence are primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts, and therefore it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). Moreover, the Court is not required to examine in the abstract the domestic legal order; its sole task is to consider whether in the case under examination the legal system offered adequate and effective protection of the applicant’s rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 108, ECHR 2000‑I; and Ruianu v. Romania,no. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003).
15. Turning to the facts of the case under examination, the Court notes that the domestic courts based their decisions on the evidence brought before them by both parties. The applicant had the opportunity to bring her claims before the court, to present evidence and to contest the evidence brought by the defendant authorities, and to present her position before the courts. Moreover, the County Court examined the applicant’s request for further evidence and gave reasons for its decision to deny it (see paragraph 7 above). The mere fact that the applicant was unsuccessful does not deprive the procedure of its fairness.
16. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention.
17. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 December 2018.
Andrea Tamietti Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply